beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.01.09 2012노1334

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. In order to build a factory and a church, the Defendants had an intention to purchase the 615 square meters of the Z field in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The facts charged in the indictment and the facts charged in the lower judgment stated in the lower judgment that the 615 square meters of the Daegu-gun, which is owned by the victim K were stated as the 615 square meters of the Z field in light of the evidence, and there was an opportunity to purchase the instant real estate, but there was a problem in preparing the purchase fund in advance, and thus, they did not deceiving the victims.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A was sentenced to 2 years of the suspended sentence in August, and the Defendant B was sentenced to 10 months of the suspended sentence) is unreasonable.

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the Defendants asked the seller whether to provide the instant real estate as collateral and obtain additional loans through a broker I, ② according to the police interrogation protocol of Defendant B, Defendant B stated that the Defendants did not enter into a sales contract on the condition that the instant real estate was fully traded, but the Defendants are responsible for the portion of the loans used by the Defendants, and that the Defendants prepared a sales contract on the grounds that they could receive loans that should be entered into a sales contract (Evidence No. 110 pages), and that Defendant B entered into a sales contract on the second police interrogation protocol of the instant real estate for Defendant A and B at the time, rather than on the intent to purchase the instant real estate, and Defendant A stated that it was necessary to receive money at the time, rather than on the intent to purchase the instant real estate (Evidence No. 60, 61 pages), and the Defendants stated in the investigation process that they were required to purchase the instant land (Evidence No. 60, 61).